Nuclear Iran

by Ignacio Ramonet

The United States has made a spectacular turnaround in its attitude to Iran. Only two months ago senior US officials were still considering selective attacks as a “possible option” (1) to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme.

Plans for these were predicated on the deployment of B61-11 bunkerbuster bombs with nuclear warheads against the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, 250 km from Tehran. For the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, Iran was “a driving force of global terrorism”, and, according to a senior Pentagon official, “the White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war” (2).

That was how things stood when suddenly everything changed. The foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the US, China, France, Britain, Russia) and Germany, meeting in Vienna on 1 June, produced a conciliatory document with no threats and with new proposals for ending the dispute.

Javier Solana, the European Union’s high representative for the common foreign and security policy, handed these proposals to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and principal Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, in Tehran on 6 June.

The content of the document has not been disclosed but it is known that, in it, the Six recognise Iran’s right, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to use nuclear energy for civilian purposes, and undertake to help it acquire light water reactors. They propose to end the trade embargo and to supply Iran with spare parts for civil aviation. They also promise to support its application to join the World Trade Organisation, which Washington has vetoed 18 times so far.

The real concession is that the US government is now willing to join the other five powers at the negotiating table in direct discussions with the Iranians, which it has absolutely refused to do in the past. The only condition is that Iran must suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

Tehran, too, seems to favour appeasement and has taken time to think the matter over before replying. The initial signs are encouraging. Larijani has said that the proposals contain positive points. The Iranian foreign minister, Manushehr Mottaki, recognising that Iran must try to dispel international concern, was optimistic: “This is a step forward. Last year the Europeans said: ‘Here is our plan, take it or leave it’. Now they are saying: ‘Here is a proposal we can discuss, study and negotiate through diplomatic channels’.”

He said that was positive: the Europeans now accepted that the proposal was open to negotiation once Iran had studied it. He added that the Iranians welcomed the US decision to participate in the negotiations (3).

What are the reasons for the US volte-face? Iran, as a major supplier of hydrocarbons, is well aware that oil production will decline. As a regional power with a population of 76 million, it has every right to be concerned about future energy supplies, and every right to opt for civil nuclear technologies. The International Atomic Energy Agency has conducted more than 2,000 inspections since 2003 but never produced any evidence that Iran was engaged in a military nuclear programme, the only type prohibited by the NPT.

Russia and China recognise that the Iranians need to make some effort to create a climate of trust, but defend Tehran’s right to have nuclear energy for civilian purposes. These states would oppose sanctions on Iran if the question were to be raised in the UN. They recently reiterated their expression of solidarity at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in mid-June.

Other considerations have probably helped tip the balance. For example, the failure of the US occupation of Iraq, where the pro-Iranian Shia are Washington’s best allies. Or Iran’s threat, if attacked, to mine the Strait of Hormuz, the seaway that carries 20% of the world’s oil supplies. Or its plan to insist on payment in European currency for oil and gas exports: Tehran has already converted most of its currency reserves into euros and knows the dollar is currently the US’s Achilles heel.

Further escalation is still possible of course, but both parties have an interest in seeking a compromise.